Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Lobbied EU Over Microsoft Fine
ukhackster writes "European commissioner Neelie Kroes has claimed that she was lobbied by the US government over the Microsoft antitrust case. ZDNet UK is reporting that Kroes 'did not appreciate' being asked to be 'nicer' to Microsoft. Given that Microsoft was fined 280m euros, perhaps this tactic backfired." From the article: "The commissioner criticised the approach. 'This is of course an intervention which is not possible,' Kroes told Dutch newspaper Financieele Dagblad this week. When asked if she was annoyed by the Embassy's approach, she said 'In my work, I cannot have a preference. I have, however, a personal opinion, but that is for Saturday night.'"
Since the days of the Yankee Traders the US government has meddled in the politics of other nations to ensure access to favourable trade for its merchants. It is said the American Revolution was more about expanding trade for businessmen in the colonies which the crown sought to prevent. These days there are innumerable reports and accusations conflicts the US finds itself embroiled in have at their very foundation the interests of american business interests. What next? Admiral Perry sailing sailing into the North Sea, firing off a cannon and proclaiming he expects better treatment when he returns?
American politics and business still haven't got it that much of the rest of the world is more circumspect in it's dealings where americans enter like barbarians and don't get why everyone is so upset.
I don't expect Microsoft was directly behind this, but they sure have changed their stripes in the past ten years, from a company which didn't believe in campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington DC. Though it does seem a stretch that with so many corporations attempting to bend the ear of the US government they would take it upon themselves to do this independently.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
and its funny how that sort of thing works both ways.
More than likely she was not 'offered' what she wanted.
I don't understand what the issue is -- if Siemens or Airbus or Glaxo gets into some regulatory issue in the US, you think their countries' embassies don't try to pull a few strings?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Since when is Microsoft Fine?
When asked if she was annoyed by the Embassy's approach, she said 'In my work, I cannot have a preference. I have, however, a personal opinion, but that is for Saturday night.'"
Musical guests this week will be Red Hot Chili Peppers.
Agreed. Didn't we help overthrow Guatemala or one of the Central American countries for bananas (literally) in the '50's. At lease we didn't threaten to invade. I wonder what that would cost. Exxon, Bechtel, Haliburton, any comments?
Guess the EU isn't used to dealing with a corporate based government.
What sweet revenge after the failed antitrust case; try and lobby a foreign court into being easy on Microsoft knowing they'll do the precise opposite.
... is supported by Big Brother? What's next? "Linux users are terrorists!"
If they played by the rules, they wouldn't have anything to worry about. If every other company was allowed to break anti-trust rules, then Microsoft lose!
Microsoft are a bunch of hypocritical, low-life bastards, a complete fucking joke!
Since the days of the Yankee Traders the US government has meddled in the politics of other nations to ensure access to favourable trade for its merchants.
Yeah, because governments never did that type of stuff until the inception of the US and no other governments have done that stuff or do that stuff now.
If you're going to be anti-US, at least have the good sense to slam us for the things we do that every other government on earth doesn't do. Thank you.
"Our morality is good, theirs is repressive."- Partisanship Rule #3
In my work, I cannot have a preference. I have, however, a personal opinion, but that is for Saturday night.
If only more politicians and government officials had this mind set. Bravo.
But unfortunately in America, this is rarely how it goes. We haven't had people who think that way in the last 150 or so years here. We had the founding fathers, then maybe 50 or 100 years to bask in their glow...then it all became special interest groups, big business, professional lobbying and damn the rest.
A good local example I can think of is the office where my wife used to work. It was the nearest large city's plans, permits and zoning office. They had a raging debate for hours on end. What was the debate, you may ask? Whether or not it would be a good idea to put a nativity scene on the door for the holidays!
Can you imagine adults actually having to debate that?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Other than the (dubious) 'reason' "because I hate Microsoft!" why should anyone complain that the United States government was lifting a finger to possibly help one of its interests? When we see/hear things like this it's easy to understand why the State Dept. might take a "damned-if-we-do-and-damned-if-we-don't" attitude. In wonder, though, if when Apple starts suing EU companies for using the letters "pod" in their products' names people will expect (demand) the U.S. government to rattle some sabers on their behalf...
Besides all that, I know we're supposed to hate Microsoft but, hey now, we're talking about the EU! Am I the only one who remembers all the red coats and that "rather unpleasant matter concerning tea" up in Boston? Sure, we're shoulder-to-shoulder against the world, but when it comes right down to it it's us-against-them in the oldest rivalry our nation knows ('cause it hails from our very beginnings!)
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
Agreed. Didn't we help overthrow Guatemala or one of the Central American countries for bananas (literally) in the '50's. At lease we didn't threaten to invade. I wonder what that would cost. Exxon, Bechtel, Haliburton, any comments?
IIRC Guatemalan government was overthrown because the leadership was going to seize the land held by american fruit interests. I think it is closely associated with the phrase 'banana republic' as in a central american government favourable to United Fruit, Dole, etc.
The war in the Pacific, half of World War II, can be traced back to US meddling in relations between Britain and Japan during WW I. US businesses sought to colonise Japan in much the same way europe (though chiefly Britain) were carving up China.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
This is going to make me sound like a nut-case, but I fear that this speaks to the in-bed deal between MS and the government. Specifically, I've had the feeling that things were neatly wrapped up in the United States MS case right around the time that it became "okay" for the government to monitor its citizens. Yes, this is an uninformed opinion, but MS got off easy over here and now they're the 800 pound gorilla that everyone ignores when debating wire tapping and the government's monitoring of private information. Seems that it would be a simple effort for MS to allow government access to at least the hard drive directories of every windows user. Just to make sure things are safe. Flame away or mod me into obscurity.
On the face of it, there is nothing wrong with this.
/. headline. Microsoft's reach is greater, gov't acts quickly to their requests while other industries suffer a kind of benign neglect until they pay to play. That's political shock and awe in action!
Practically every country in the world would lobby for a company the size of MS if it was in their backyard. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this is a good thing(TM). America has to aggressively expand trade of it's goods and services worldwide.
We all know that the underlying issue is what makes it
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
The Pirate Bay case doesn't count because they were back up within 2 days stronger than ever, continue to operate now, and no one associated with them has yet been punished. The only thing still missing on their site are many of their hilarious replies to received legal threats.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
They pay taxes. So their tax dollars are used to lobby against them! Eg Novell, Red Hat, etc.
At least in the US, gov't officials accepting bribes is illegal. In other countries, that practice is the only way to do business.
EUC never ordered this.
EUC ordered to provide full documentation to the specifics (APIs) at a RAND price.
Second, my though:
I never doubted M$ would interfere with EUC ruling. I can't remember once where they've played nice.
Mastering the English language is fucking easy: all you have to do is to put an f* word in every fucking sentence.
It is said the American Revolution was more about expanding trade for businessmen in the colonies which the crown sought to prevent.
The Boston Tea Party occured because the British eliminated a tax, levied only in English ports; as a way to compete with American tea smugglers.
It was this price reduced tea that was dumped into the Harbour, to prevent Americans from buying, cheap, legal tea.
KFG
Yeah, because governments never did that type of stuff until the inception of the US and no other governments have done that stuff or do that stuff now.
If you're going to be anti-US, at least have the good sense to slam us for the things we do that every other government on earth doesn't do.
I'm not being anti-US, it's just that examining a lot of american history in detail reveals unflattering behaviour at the root of conflict.
One thing I don't believe any other government, or people, have done throughout history is to insist other governments should be more like their own and encouraging change with a very large military. Ironic the US gets along very well with Pakistan where the leader was installed by a coup, yet applauds the overthrow of democratically elected President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Clearly there are things said behind closed doors which would make such things appear logical, but the rest of the world notices and eyes the US warily.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
If a politician can, by simply dispatching an envoy or making a phone call, prevent millions of dollars in additional deficit, you better believe they'll at least try. In fact, if they didn't try then they wouldn't be doing their job. Posting a story like this is nothing but anti-MS fodder.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
Its true.. how dare the American goverment try and influence other countries! Those bastards! ..Oh wait, we need there help?
We love you America.
You of course are aware that you can replace every reference to the US in your post with the name of any other country on earth at any time in recorded history and it would all apply.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
...the quote "Given that Microsoft was fined 280m euros, perhaps this tactic backfired" would tell me that the Bush Administration wanted Microsoft to be hit for an even larger fine. I'm not sure why evil geniuses at the White House and Pentagon wanted to do that, but I believe a French book is coming out to tell me.
Please get off your soap box for a moment. Not that I support everything the USA government does on behalf of corporate interest, but let's not pretend the US is the sole practitioner of such tactics. The imperialists of Europe have been using their military might to enrich monetary interests since way before there even was a USA.
If the 'rest of the world' has any issues with the tactics taken in cases such as these, perhaps it is only that the USA is too successful at the game they invented.
Don't hate the player; hate the game.
"In a startling new development, Microsoft's appeal against the record anti-trust fine is to be heard this Saturday, at 7pm GMT. Early reports indicate that the judges hearing the appeal had been seen buying Linux t-shirts and double-bladed battle axes."
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Doesn't the EU try to help out Airbus and other companies based in their region of control the exact same way?
The EU has not forgotten that M$ was branded a monopolist in US federal court and that the appeals court upheld that judgement. M$ has few options of recourse outside the US - little chance of reversal in appeals, no lobbying channels to undercut barriers to their monopolist tactics, and a well read community with little tolerance for strong handed tactics from corrupt US corporations.
Good to see that there are level headed authorities in the EU that are not so easily swayed.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
I hate it when large corparations use money to influence government. I bet George, John, Ben, Thomas, and the rest of the gang in the Continental Congress are rolling over in the graves.
Insert funny smart-ass comment here.
You say that as if something "illegal" cannot also be "the only way to do business". In those other countries, its also illegal. And the pervasiveness of it in US electoral politics in various forms suggests that its also the only way to do business, at least big business, in the US. What is practically necessary and what is illegal can overlap.
Rubbish. Not even the Golden Horde or the Nazis were simply murderous. They'd wipe out armies, and occasionally cities that resisted, but otherwise just wanted to enslave their opponents. More successful empire builders like the Romans made efforts to assimilate their former enemies.
After all, it's not as if the EU were trying to fine a US company or something.
It's pretty much SOP. Nations don't want to see their own interests fucked, so they'll put pressure on other nations to leave them alone. Doesn't mean the other nations have to listen (as in this case) but you can't fault them for trying. I mean it doesn't say that the regulator was threatened or anything so what's the big deal?
Not quite. You omitted some key facts. A simple Google search will enlighten you, but there are a couple of quick points that I'll write here. One, there was a boycott in the colonies of the British monopolist East India Company, which was quickly going bankrupt. While the alternate source of tea was in fact smuggled, the lifting of tax on the East India Company was not what got the colonists all up in a frenzy. In fact, it was the plan to escort in the East India Company's ships with a British naval guard.
Even then, the Boston Tea Party did not directly lead to war. Colonial leaders decried the act, and Ben Franklin even offered to pay for the tea with his own money. The British reaction, however, was far more serious. They closed the port of Boston and passed the "Intolerable Acts", as they were referred to in the colonies. This led to increased sympathy for the revolutionaries among formerly loyal colonists.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The only reason that the U.S. is different from most other countries in this regard is because the U.S. has a lot more power than most.
I expect that when China "lobbies" one of it's neighboring countries -- or virtually anyone else -- from a position of power, they apply all the same pressure. There I expect it's probably even stronger, since politics and industry are so closely intertwined.
The states that complain most about the U.S. using its power for its (by which I mean, its citizens) own advantage are mostly those states that are less powerful, and it smacks more of jealousy than it does of real moral outrage.
The government of the United States is elected by the citizens of the United States, and has its only mandate to them. If Americans as a whole wanted a kinder, gentler foreign policy, they'd vote for people who were in favor of that; however, such stances are quite unpopular.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
You don't believe in the British Empire? (And by 'be more like their own' I mean run by the British for the betterment of the Bristish, to the exclusion of all others.)
I'm not being anti-US, it's just that examining a lot of american history in detail reveals unflattering behaviour at the root of conflict.
Yeah, out of all the world's nations, how many do you think this isn't true of?
One thing I don't believe any other government, or people, have done throughout history is to insist other governments should be more like their own and encouraging change with a very large military.
Really? Then this should be enlightening for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire
"Our morality is good, theirs is repressive."- Partisanship Rule #3
Maybe next comes, "Play nice with MS and don't levy big fine on them or we'll bomb you back into the stone age"
When did Airbus get slammed with a lawsuit? If so what action did the EU take? Secondly the EU is not the national government behind the Airbus consortium EADS. So if anything it would have to be the British, German, French and Spanish governments that complained. Then again maybe they did. I am really just asking.
Much of the EU's decision-making and litigation policy regarding the Microsoft case has been... suspicious to say the least. I'm no Microsoft fanboi - ALL OPERATING SYSTEMS SUCK - but it really seems like a case of "Let's bash Microsoft no matter what they do." There has been some evidence of collusion between the EU and competitors, documents hidden by the court, and outright bias by the court. Some of the outrageous demands that the EU has placed on M$ are ridiculous to say the least, and have nothing to do with "monopoly".
While I'm all for *nix and FOSS projects, a lot of this whole process seems to be driven by the EU's motivation to get some blood-money and dictate ever-changing terms to a corporation rather than the interests of its citizens. The EU is, BTW, not exactly known for their pro-American stances on many things - and would like to see America and American business socialized like their economy.
Microsoft's accusations of EU Court collusion are interesting reading to say the least:
MS Supplementary Response (16 Pages - PDF WARNING)
as covered in EETimes:
Microsoft accuses EU of collusion, bias
You don't believe in the British Empire? (And by 'be more like their own' I mean run by the British for the betterment of the Bristish, to the exclusion of all others.)
Outposts of the Empire were largely administered in whatever way was deemed fit, often very, very brutally, simply to keep things in check and to advance interests of British interests, the notorious East India Company as an example. Not much of an Empire anymore, but many of the treasures obtained during the age of empire still remain in british hands (and I don't just mean museum pieces.)
Multinationals now do with trade agreements what once was achieved at point of arms.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Also, "thoughout history"?? You mean in the 220 years that the US has even existed?
I think what you're trying to say is that in the last decade (hardly all of history) the US has used its military as diplomatic leverage. But still, it's hardly unique in that respect.
The whole concept of not just outright conquering other nations whom you disagree with, and are more powerful than, is a relatively recent invention. Only since World War II has it really taken hold as a global opinion. Prior to that, it was just assumed that any great power had the right to colonize/dominate any minor country it could, and fight over territory from other great powers using whatever means it had.
Even within the last fifty years, while the US has been nowhere close to the shining pillar it attempts to pass itself off as, the former soviet union did much worse. Ask the people behind the iron curtain, or living under the chaos that has been the dictatorial aftermath of communism in africa, about forcing governmental systems on a people.
While the American approach is quite honestly hypocritical (we are going to force you to be "free" by our definition of free), it is no less so than the communist line of a state run by the workers.
I understand that bashing America is the "in" thing to do right now, and I am in no way condoning our current foreign policy. But please have some sense of history before you go spouting off nonsense.
"IIRC Guatemalan government was overthrown because the leadership was going to seize the land held by american fruit interests. I think it is closely associated with the phrase 'banana republic' as in a central american government favourable to United Fruit, Dole, etc."
The Guatemalan government had announced plans to purchase and redistribute most of the land controlled by United Fruit. They would use the equivalent of imminent domain, paying the value listed on tax returns. United Fruit had, of course, been cheating and lying on their taxes, vastly underestimating the value of their land. They had some pull with the Dulles brothers and managed to get the government overthrown.
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
I think people are getting their opinions of Microsoft too tied up in this issue; I hate MS as much as the next guy, but that still doesn't mean that I think what happened was wrong. I find it distasteful, but I also realize that Microsoft is a major contributor to the U.S.'s technological dominance, and a not-insignificant source of export dollars. Given the way the U.S. and world economies are going, it's these sort of high-tech/intellectual-property exports that are going to have to become the lifeblood of the U.S. if we want to stay relevant in the future.
So regardless of one's personal feelings on Microsoft's business practices, it's hard to deny that if they got a cold, it might quickly spread across a whole section of the U.S. economy and financial market. That would be bad for everone here, thus it's in the national interest to prevent it.
What would I prefer? I would have preferred that MS not get so big in the first place. Monopolies are dangerous, not just to their competitors, but also to the health of the market and the economy in which they reside in general. However, once entrenched, it becomes the duty of a responsible government to protect its citizens from financial ruin, even if this means doing things that are not in the best interest of some other country's citizens.
The mandate of the U.S. government is to represent the interests of the U.S. citizenry abroad; like it or not, a whole lot of that citizenry is dependent or linked, in one way or another (if not directly, than via their mutual funds / retirement / etc.) to Microsoft. The USG is doing exactly what it should be, in trying to do what's best for its citizens. (Of course, in many cases there are good reasons for being nice, even when it's not advantageous in the short run, because it'll work out better over the longer term.)
Now, what I think should happen is that at the same time that we're trying to maintain our exports by propping up a giant like MS, we should be looking for ways internally to let it down slowly: eliminate the monopoly, in other words. It's too huge to let crash, to be sure, so we need to find an alternative; one that retains U.S. dominance but also removes the dangling guillotine blade which is any firm that is so big and so central to our future economy.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I should probably add, I wouldn't have said a word had you not made the implications that we were the originators of this behavior, or that we are the only ones who do it now. Hell, I agree with you that what we are doing is wrong, but you are very very very wrong to say that we invented that behavior. Not morally, just factually. That allegation betrays an ignorance of history and a very anti-US prejudice. And you're entitled to both your ignorance and your prejudice, just don't mistake them for anything else.
This is a really good example that despite the fact that I am strongly against the direction my country has taken, I also recognize elements of what's wrong here in the anti-US crowd. You guys are not making reasoned statements based on documented history when you say things like this. You sure as hell aren't leading by example. Why should a republican care about learning from history and being accurate in his allegations about other nations, if the people criticizing them don't? And sure, why should you care when they don't? Hey, let's all not care and find out if Ghandi was right about eye for an eye. Sounds like a plan to me.
"Our morality is good, theirs is repressive."- Partisanship Rule #3
Here in lies the problem for the USA government:
We simply don't live in the age of empires anymore. (never mind the computer game).
The British had to establish an empire to be able to actually trade with the countries they invaded. i.e. the British love their tea, so they took over India so people back in Britain could drink tea.
With the modern world and the WTO etc., all part of the USA's making, such government intervention is heavily dissuaded. In some sense, the US government shot themselves in the foot. Or in another, far more realistic sense, like always, the people of the USA were sold out by politicians helping some local big businessmen get extremely rich.
Look at Hewlit-Packard - one of the top 50 largest companies in the world (by some accounts anyway), yet they did this partly by getting US politicians to sell out the US public and allow HP to manufacture everything in China rather than the USA.
It took a diverse, healthy, wealthy, competitive market that was good for everybody and crushed it with OEM agreements, giveaways and secret API's. This is an established truth from the US trial statement of facts. Now it is trying to do the same in Europe. And it's not just the IT sector that's affected. Nowadays defects in MS products are harming every part of the economy, public and private sector that runs on computers. These designe defects are costing billions per quarter and getting more dangerous by the year as MS begins to make inroads into infrastructure (electricity) and air transport.
So lay off with that, "aww you just hate MS" crap. Brand recognition cuts both ways.
M$ is a dangerous, anti-American movement. It's bad policy for US representatives to be pushed into doing diplomacy work for M$. M$ is most definitely not in US interests. Some politicians may have been rented, but as a nation, M$ is a bigger threat than China.
Aftermath of communism in africa?
Communist Russia never conquered africa, most of Africa's problems have been the fall out of British colonialism. Communism has never really gained much of a foothold.
I dont read
While the American approach is quite honestly hypocritical (we are going to force you to be "free" by our definition of free), it is no less so than the communist line of a state run by the workers.
Either you meant that it is less so, or I'm missing your point.
. . .the British monopolist East India Company, which was quickly going bankrupt.
.the plan to escort in the East India Company's ships with a British naval guard.
.important consequences."
.
Because of American tea smuggling.
. .
You don't suppose this step might have been taken because they anticipated something like the Boston Tea Party?
Even then, the Boston Tea Party did not directly lead to war.
Never said it did. Sam Adams did. Ya know, the guy who "organized" the Boston Tea Party, however, Cousin John wrote in his diary, "This destruction of the tea is so bold, so daring, so firm, so intripid and inflexible, it must have . .
A simple Google search will enlighten you. .
Don't need to. I've done a more complicated search through these things called "books," many of which are right over there. The John Adams quote above was not cut and pasted. I typed it by hand, copying out of one these books.
Am I simplifying? Damn straight.
KFG
Although you dont outright claim it - it is obvious - you are claiming Europe enjoys peace because the US is doing "all" the dirty work?! Americans so often fall back on that old joke about you "saving" Europe during WWII. You Yanks only showed up AFTER the British had done the hard work anyway. And today I rightly claim that Europe does more than its fair share of peace keeping missions in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. You probably wouldnt know where anyway so I will refrain from listing them. We dont invade nations without UN approval, sure makes for better relations afterwards. Now, for the REAL reason Europe has enjoyed peace and growth is because we sought to end the in-fighting in the family by creating the European Union. And, yes, this time peace is permanent for European Union citizens.
Creating "peace" and democracy in Iraq sure has been effective, I must say. The draft, coming soon to a city near you!
Here's a peek at their stripes, so to speak. The figures include only the declared, above board transactions. Hookers, whisky, and personal blowjobs from Bill or Melinda not included:
Stanton Park Group Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $20,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $140,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $80,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $160,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2003 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2003 $60,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2004 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2004
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1998 $280,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1998 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1999 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1999 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2000 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2000 $240,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $180,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $180,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $40,000
Who says this wasn't the intended goal? Some disgruntal US DOJ wageslave gets screwed on his case vs Microsoft, pulls a few strings and pisses of the right people in the EU and TA-DA! Humongous fine and senators, presidents, congressmen to bail 'em out.
I don't expect Microsoft was directly behind this, but they sure have changed their stripes in the past ten years, from a company which didn't believe in campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington DC. Though it does seem a stretch that with so many corporations attempting to bend the ear of the US government they would take it upon themselves to do this independently.
If the US goverment would not see the Microsoft as part of it's influence hegemony, we would have seen the splitting of Microsoft already.I belive that if Microsoft's board would change into Asian representatives, the US gorverment would be screemingly screddering the Monopoly into small bits.
That is an oxymoron. Diplomacy is what happens before any leverage of military nature is brought into the picture
"You can't allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain them." [Condoleezza Rice]
Now, what I think should happen is that at the same time that we're trying to maintain our exports by propping up a giant like MS, we should be looking for ways internally to let it down slowly: eliminate the monopoly, in other words. It's too huge to let crash, to be sure, so we need to find an alternative; one that retains U.S. dominance but also removes the dangling guillotine blade which is any firm that is so big and so central to our future economy.
It is impossible to "let it down slowly". Even though AT&T was busted apart for committing the same kinds of crimes against the people of the USA, it reassembled itself, as was always the plan, under the guise of one of its former parts and now has not only come back round full circle, but is more dangerous than ever before. You cannot tame and domesticate a monster, you must kill it and make sure it does not come back to haunt you like a bad hollywood movie creature. Microsoft will do exactly the same, and what's worse yet, is MS has much greater brainpower in their arsenal, bigger vision for what they wish their version of the future to impose upon us, and worst of all a bankroll and the patience to outspend and outwait every possible contender against them.... including the governments of the USA and all of the EU.
I'm old enough to remember books, but not rich enough to have them laying around my tiny apartment. It is fine for you to think that the British tea monopoly was just and that the colonists had no right to smuggle in "illegitimate" tea. That's just an opinion, and I certainly can't hope to change that. But certainly you would agree that the overreaction by the British was legendary? I mean, here they had a bunch of rabble-rousers leading them on, and they took it hook, line, and sinker rather than dealing rationally with loyal colonial leaders such as Franklin. Had they dealt with the loyal colonists rationally, the revolutionaries would never have picked up so much steam. I thought the lesson to be learned from that whole period was "Don't be like George," if you want to stay in the good graces of your subjects. Funny, then, that the US is currently lead by another George...
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Microsoft is a foreign corporation as far the EU is concerned. I would expect favoritism of local interests over foreign.
... It can be lobbied, and will listen if its elected representatives are donated to appropriately.
But the EU is like any other merchant state
No surprises here.
Ok, maybe we should. But next time you have a terrorist attack, don't think it was because the terrorists hate your freedom or because their religion tells them to do it. It will be because of that very same asshole attitude of yours.
Can't believe we are being so nice and calling this "lobbying". Guys, this is pure corruption, very much in the style of the best Sopranos episode! It has nothing to do with culture, perposterous!
(For those interested in ancient history, it's also why the original version of the Magna Carta authorized the legal system to use force against the Government whenever the Government violated the law. The original authors were very likely of the opinion that Governments would indeed make every effort to pervert things in their interest, and were not keen on the idea that they should be given such authority unchecked.)
If Apple attempts to sue European companies over the term "pod", then Apple (the older, EUROPEAN Apple, the one that has the sole rights to use the name Apple in conjunction with music) might find itself winning a lot more court battles, particularly if the US Government tries to interfere.
Mind you, this is NOT the first time the US Government has been involved in a commercial dispute. Airbus was monitored by the NSA, with commercial secrets then being sold to Boeing. Industrial espionage is most certainly not acceptable - by the US or by anyone else. That the US was caught and every other Government involved in such acts has (so far) escaped unscathed does not mean we should forgive the US. Rather, we should demand total accountability of each and every case, no matter who it is by, and demand that independent observers be given suitable powers and authority to police economic crimes by Governments, no matter which Government that happens to be.
Do I hate Microsoft? Not really. I hate some of their products, I hate some of their attitudes, and I certainly hate their contempt for the legal nicities, but I don't hate the company. Why should I? Actions are by individuals, and it is the actions that I truly despise. Policies are a collective decision and so the collective identity is appropriate to take responsibility, so fining Microsoft for illegal policies is entirely appropriate. If the crime has occured, then hating Microsoft is irrelevent. You could love Microsoft and still accept that if you do the crime, you should do the time. Why should feelings play any part in this? Feelings won't tell you if action A is illegal, and should NEVER tell you if action A is excusable. These should be rational decisions by rational people. This is why Common Law makes such a big deal over "reasonableness". Would a reasonable person consider this to be acceptable? Is this a reasonable act? Not "did they deserve it?", or "which is the home team?".
Other have talked about the founding of America and the Boston Tea Party, so I'll only cover the aspect of the revolution not brought up - under the Magna Carta, King George had no authority to inprison people without trial, to bear false witness, to deprive people of their livlihoods, or any of the other crimes that actually were carried out on his orders. Again, going back to the original version and the stipulation that authorized rebellion to exact punishment on the Government to the value of the damage done, then the Revolutionary War was arguably authorized under British law as understo
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
This is big business having a politician bought and paid for. This is exactly the reason that campaign reform is needed. Business should not be able to contribute to any politician. Our political system is being destroyed by big business. The government is not here for businesses, it is here for the people. You can argue that they can be one in the same, but they aren't. I don't want to live in the United States of Microsoft or the United States of Walmart. But, that is what our government is becoming.
yes I believe Sun Tzu said: 'Generally in warfare, keeping a nation intact is best, destroying a nation second best... ' and also this may be pertinent: ' Therefore, to gain a hundred victories in a hundred battles is not the highest excellence; to subjugate the enemy's army without doing battle is the highest of excellence.'
The machine unmakes the man. Now that the machine is so perfect, the engineer is nobody. -Ralph Waldo Emerson
My wife and I have taken the Foreign Service day long verbal exam. She got to defend dolphin drowning tuna fishing by one of our fictitious allies in a scenario. I got to try to negotiate a meeting with government ministers to discuss cigarette imports into their country.
I think testing for traces of scruples is just something the State Department does routinely.
Thucydides' History of the Pelopponesian War (411BCE?) makes clear that the Athenians insisted that other governments should be more like their own and encouraged that with a very large military. He seems to have thought that they did so in order to increase their own wealth and power and to enhance their security.
But please have some sense of history before you go spouting off nonsense.
That's my whole point. It doesn't matter how badly people here who hate what we're doing want to make it sound like we've created the whole concept of using governments to secure advantage for trade in foreign markets, we didn't create that. That's been going on for far longer than we've been a country.
What's really the difference between trying to force a country to have a certain type of government, and annexing it as part of your territory to be governed by your government? The former is not exactly the later, but the later definetly qualifies as the former, and that's been going on for what? A couple thousand years at least?
"Our morality is good, theirs is repressive."- Partisanship Rule #3
Perhaps you should closely examine the means of assimilation the Romans used. Perhaps you have a different view of history to say "Not even the Golden Horde or the Nazis were simply murderous"
some of whom are very smart and have an in-depth understanding of what they are using
While the security issues and sometimes instability of windows might lead you to think otherwise (other OS's have the same problem, and...) there are some pretty smart people who work at microsoft as well. The fact is, big corps with experienced IT people do get hacked, and backdoors do get found by hackers, etc. Yes, they're good, but on the other hand they don't always catch the elite hackers either.
And if you control the operating system, both on client and server, imagine what you could do. Windows does call home, be it for windows update, or other means. Ever notice that every now and then IE likes to go to the windows update pages rather than your start page? How about IIS, what if when IE hits a properly configured IIS server, it dumps a little extra info. Somehow I doubt that the security dudes can watch for any odd byte in a massive stream of traffic. Sure, you can see unauthorized or unexpected access to various sites, but how about if one were to sneak in a little extra here and there when accessing an authorized site?
Just ask Rob Enderle.
Amusing, and most of it is crap. First off, the EU's anti American stance, actually probably very true, only problem with applying it on this case is virtually all major partys involved in both sides of the case are American. Which actually makes the EU impartial by default as it "likes" neither of them (though some could argue a slant in favor of MS as they provide more EU jobs than any of the others) Then lets take the EET article, especially the bit where MS accuse Professor Neil Barrett of not being impartial and lets backtrack a bit, who recommended Barrett in the first place to the court? Oh yeah ...Microsoft (seems they forgot to make sure he was dishonest before putting his name on the list of potential Trustee's)
Sure he talked to the other side, just as he talked to MS, it is afterall his job.
Really what the EU has demanded of MS is not OTT nor to hard to deliver and no they did not ask for all the source code no matter what the MS marketing machine claims, rather they demanded that the equivalent of the API's be released so 3rd partys could operate/integrate with MS software,
This is in the markets interest, other companies interest, the consumers interest and even potentially MS's interest because the more 3rd party apps that can integrate and integrate well with MS products the more reason there is to use a MS product at the core of the setup.
But MS does not want this because they are stuck in the mindset of "lock everyone else out except those we pick to make the most money from additional/complimentary software"
I'm old enough to remember books, but not rich enough to have them laying around my tiny apartment.
.
.King George. He's nuts. Up the revolution. What do we want? Freedom! When do we want it? Now!
My apartment is 400 square feet (I do have some more storage space though). Sometimes I think it's a little too big for comfort; and that's taking into account that about half the space is hardcore workshop/lab. Most of its interior walls, however, are constructed of floor to ceiling bookcases. I can rearrange them to rearrange my spaces. It's a nice system. I'm torn between finding a smaller space and something about 600 square feet. I could use a bit more space in the workshop. I can only sit in one chair at a time and I've got four. Enough for enough company; and no more.
Although I have paid a lot of money (for me) for the odd out of print volume I do not actually have a lot of money, as these things go, into my books and am anything but rich. I've just been collecting them for a long time. When asked what I wanted for my second birthday I said,"Books." People still know to give me books. Some of them are the authors of the books. Most the books I've purchased I paid something like a dime to a couple bucks for. Even a couple of the O'Reilly's (nothing sells cheaper than an obsolete tech manual).
It is fine for you to think that the British tea monopoly was just and that the colonists had no right to smuggle in "illegitimate" tea.
Who said I think anything like that? My father's family is old Boston. Like from the beginning and shit. In other posts I've lamented that America is no longer the contraban runner to the world. My tiny little apartment is in an old neighborhood. Washington and LaFayette used to sleep just a couple blocks from me. Sometimes it seems like half the buildings still standing were built by the Schuyler family.
But certainly you would agree that the overreaction by the British was legendary?
George was nuts. I've noted in other posts that Parliament often reacted to news of an American military victory with a cheer and standing ovation.
Funny, then, that the US is currently lead by another. .
. .
Yeah, I remember the 60s. I've been gathering books for a long time.
KFG
What!? No other nation in the history of the world has used its military to make others like them?
One of these days I'd like to believe slashdot readers actually understand something before replying, without siezing upon a misunderstanding or a tangential point. What part of to insist other governments should be more like their own was a mystery to you? Too many posts are interpreting the whole sentence as 'the US have never attacked or invaded another country', which isn't anywhere near what I wrote. The US a habit of installing and/or propping up governments which are friendly to its interests, more recently the US is into Nation Building, that is doing a makeover on the governance to be more like that in the US, democratic. Democratic of not, the US has a tendency to befriend or alienate governments which appears to have no bering upon how leaders are selected and what powers they have. It's business as usual.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Oh? What about the Soviet Union? I definitely think I recall they insisted that other countries should become more like theirs.
Yea.. Rome assimilated the hell out of Carthage.
Of course, that actually was sort of the beginning of the end for them. Their political power was waning so they had to destroy things.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
...this whole process seems to be driven by the EU's motivation to get some blood-money and dictate ever-changing terms to a corporation rather than the interests of its citizens.
While it might not be in your best interest to see a US corporation heavily fined by the EU it does not mean that it is not in the best interests of European citizens. Opening up the APIs to allow true competition is definitely in the interests of EU citizens. If they refuse to do that then they should be fined in accordance with the economic benefit that they are denying the EU by acting illegally.
The game hasn't changed since Mesopotamian times, and probably earlier.
Actually it rather has. Where wars were fought over resources, now governments look out for the interests of business using alliances and instruments such things as treaties and the WTO.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
"US government has meddled in the politics of other nations to ensure access to favourable trade"
And, of course, the US Government invented that particular practice, didn't it?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
There are rules. They're called LAW.
I would love for you to try and become a lawyer. Unfortunately, as dumb as lawyers are, they have a minimum bar (no pun intended) that I doubt you'd reach given how *obvious* you think the LAW is.
Except the government is suppose to serve its people, not its bottom line.
In a sense, the entire cold war was a diplomatic war, with the weight of nuclear weapons backing up every word.
John Foster Dulles, the Sec of State, had worked for a law firm that regularly defended United Fruit, and sat on its board of directors, IIRC. An overview of the whole sordid affair can be found in David Halberstam's The Fifties. The bit about compensating United Fruit for their assessed value of the land is completely true and particularly funny, but the Dulleses weren't laughing
It should be stated, of course, that United Fruit was completely incapable of ordering a war through its intermediaries in the US government, but Arbenz, by initiating a land redistribution plan, was pushing every anti-commie button the US government had at the time, particularly with McCarthy accusing the State Department of having 57 "Card-Carrying Communists" in its senior ranks. Had Dole owned the land and not United Fruit, the outcome would have probably been the same, despite Dulles having worked for their competitor.
One wonders what action the US would've taken if the land had been owned by a French or Mexican fruit company...
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
I personally think territories are worse off if they are not taken over. If we annexed, say, Mexico, we would have to afford Mexicans the same rights, wages, and quality of living as United States citizens. We'd also have to deal with uprisings and things of that sort. This is the type of thing that the British Empire had to deal with.
By not annexing, we can more effectively utilize (or abuse) the people and territory, since it is self-contained and self-controlled, and since we are not responsible for their welfare.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
Yeah, heaven forbid the US government lobbies other nations for things beneficial to its citizens.
You people really should be happy we haven't killed you yet.
Which is precisely why some people like Osama and his friends have decided that it's in their best interest to kill you first, before you change your mind.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Generally the US lobbies for things in the US interest. Many people confuse democracies with republican government. The reason the US doesn't like Chavez is because he threatens their interests and is not interested in a free society. Democracy says nothing about freedom. Tyranny of the majority anyone? If the choice comes between a democratically elected leader who wants to kill you or a dictator who doesn't I'll take the dictator any day of the week.
Terrorists do not attack and kill 3000 people simply because they don't like the people's attitude. They attack because they hate the people and want them destroyed. A group of people who have the resolve to carry out a terrorist attack would not be expending so much effort, energy, and money simply based on the attitude of their intended victims. The cause of hatred is far more deep-rooted than just an attitude.
Whoever modded the comment insightful needs a reality check (or a better understanding of terrorists).
But what being ticked off at someone's attitude does is make you happy when the other party is attacked by terrorists. It doesn't make you actually commit a terrorist act.
One thing I don't believe any other government, or people, have done throughout history is to insist other governments should be more like their own and encouraging change with a very large military.
This has to be the single stupidest statement I have ever read on slashdot. Have you ever heard of the British Empire? The French Empire? Soviet Domination of Eastern Europe? Did it ever occure to you that pretty much everywhere in the world was some sort of colony of a European power? How does this stupid shit get modded +5?
I think the big problem is that we had the first real chance to be the originators of a whole new kind of behavior, but chose not to.
LOL, you clearly aren't married with children! Baby equipment fills my meager living room, and the 4 little shelves we have are filled with my wife's medical books. Fortunately for us readers (my wife and I are both big readers), the New York City Public Library is 3 blocks away. It's not the main branch, but they will send stuff between branches. I like nonfiction these days - I just read all of Jared Diamond's stuff. History is always fun... I was recently reading about some biblical history, even though I'm not religious. The ways the bible has been tortured by various parties through history is fascinating. You can justify anything with it - it's like the Wild Draw Four card in Uno. But I digress...
I assumed that you were taking a "Colonial British" point of view, because calling the tea "legitimate" could definitely be considered biased. It's heavily dependent on point-of-view... from the colonial perspective, the British monopoly was the illegitimate source of tea and the colonial smugglers were doing the right thing.
This George isn't quite as crazy as the George of old. He's just misguided and has done a great job of insulating himself with people who think like he does. At his core, he's just another mediocre American politician, though one in a position of power at a vital time in our history. I'm not so sure that we would have been better off with the others (Gore or Kerry). I'm a little bit at a loss as to what to make of the current state of the Union. Actually make that the state of the world.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Police training manuals state that an amount of money around $2 - $3k is enough to inspire murder (you could be murdered if the other person expected to gain 3 grand).
Now think about how much money Trey has. For example, the President of China stopped and met him BEFORE meeting George Bush on a recent trip.
With the crooks and liars in the White House now, I am surprised they didn't give him the medal of freedom.
Ok, but does that make it right? "but he did it too!" is the favourite excuse of every 5 year old in the playground. The more relevant question is, what advantage does this tactic ultimately give, and how often can you use it before it becomes "abuse" ?
It's not less hypocritical. Merely (usually) less violent. Sometimes less oppressive. Rarely more oppressive.
That may be faint praise, but it's honest praise. "We aren't as bad as the other guys!" doesn't ring when you shout it, but it's true...mostly. There's a few places that could honestly claim it was a lie, and with good evidence to back it.
Unfortunately, there's also a few places where there IS no good solution. If you choose to back either side in any of those places, we will inevitably end up being seen as bad guys by most dispassionate observers. And we frequently DO pick a side. This is unwise...but it can be politically popular among powerful segments of the population. So...well, our politicians almost always go for politically advantageous rather than wise action for a nation to take. Stupid, but that's what the system is set up to favor.
And then there's the occasional period when we get an out and out paranoid loonie in charge of the govt. That happens everywhere. There's got to be a decent way of weeding them out...but nobody seems to have managed.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
LOL, you clearly aren't married with children!
Been there. Done that. It's concievable I might do it again, but not today or tomorrow. I'm enjoying the quiet.
I assumed that you were taking a "Colonial British" point of view, because calling the tea "legitimate" could definitely be considered biased.
Oh I can take all sorts of points of views that aren't necessarily fully in line with my own.
I'm a little bit at a loss as to what to make of the current state of the Union. Actually make that the state of the world.
I'm keeping my eyes open for a nice, little, dry cave in the Adirondacks. Ha, ha, only serious.
KFG
The Gospel according to lolcat
Make it right? Of course not. I never argued that it was. However, to single out America as a particularly egregious offendor in this realm is to display an ignorance of history.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
There are other powerful countries in the world like china, germany, france etc that have armies that can invade and occupy most weak countries (like iraq) but they don't do it.
You really think that? Germany nor France have any military power to occupy any country like Iraq. They simply could not.... It would require too much personnel. You can usually take the rule "the army of a European country will be just enough to defend it for 10 days". That only counts for the big European countries.... I won't even start on the small ones.
I am a European, I do play the anti-US game, but frankly... anyone wanting to invade Europe gets a "walk in free" card. Perhaps the UK has a stonger military, and might keep up 20 days, but Europe now lives on diplomacy... Which frankly is a better way than brute force, but most certainly can`t compete with "we'll bomb you to death and look for solutions afterwards
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
So basicly the US is like the GPL in that both demand freedom?
Yes, but... no, not at all.
The GPL is optional. Freedom at gunpoint is not.
Please - you were born with a mind, try to use it!
Put as vaguely as this, there are tons off earlier examples: the Soviet empire, the French immediately after the revolution, Fascist Germany and Italy in some sense, Maoist China sort-of, the colonial empires kind-a.
Of course most were thinly veiled land grabs, but there is a grey area ranging from outright annexation, through puppet regimes and blatant political interference, to 'encouraging' regime change. And of course every regime always is able to convince itself that it does all its meddling and sabre rattling for the good of humanity, and the Glorious Future of Mankind.
Last I heard, terrorists don't destroy civilisations. They actually kill people to (amazing thought) spread terror.
And yours, because after all, attitude really means you deserve being blown to bits, doesn't it?
Not sure the poster is looking for a serious response to this, but here it goes: I really don't think that any fanatic Muslims serious about comitting terrorist attacks against the U.S. care about our attitude. They are on a 'holy war' after all, their jihad and they are now seeking 'permission' from Mulsim leaders to kill tens of millions of us. Personally, and again that's just me Joe Shmoe talking: if they even commit one more act of senseless violence against innocent people in name of their fucking misguided religion I will personally sign up to drop a nuke or two on those assholes.
Being meek and apologetic won't get the West anywhere - if someone wants a fight so badly, I'd say, let's give it to them.
First of all: Microsoft does any mistake possible on the EU level. Their hired guns are unable to communicate with EU officials and lack respect for antitrust authorities. Microsoft employs miriads of radicals of all kind. Microsoft's reputation is pretty low these days. Second: I personally believe that this is the way it should be. I am an EU citizen. Microsoft is no EU company. Their lobbyists are no EU citizens. So why do they lobby my democratic legislator or my institutions? The proper way should be submissions via the embassy and foreign lobbyists should get expelled.
Only because that is beyond their means. It would take more money and effort than they can afford. If they had means for it, and if they hated their enemies enough, they would do it. You can think of several methods of doing this very easily and in a very cheap and efficient manner, but when it comes down to implementing it, things can get rather complicated.
Terrorists do not attack and kill 3000 people simply because they don't like the people's attitude. They attack because they hate the people and want them destroyed.
No, al Queda wants us out of the middle east in general, and Saudi Arabia in particular. You don't see them attacking Canadians or Germans so much, do you?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq: 43,491. That's not enough?
Yes... that's exactly why they did it...
I wondered how much that was in terms of Microsoft's income; could they afford this easily or would it really change minds? According to Gervase Markham, Microsoft made £14 million a day from Microsoft Windows client licenses alone. 280 million Euros is about £188 million today, so Microsoft will need to spend roughly half a month's worth of Windows license fees to pay off that fine. So, challenging the fine with the lawyers Microsoft is already paying (and have no intention of firing) makes a lot of financial sense. Countries around the world have shown by example that they will either back down or stifle themselves from making Microsoft do something Microsoft doesn't want to do. Therefore, there's nothing lost in trying to reduce the fine.
When the fine was announced, Neelie Kroes was quoted as saying "The fine is at a substantial level to induce Microsoft to comply. They have to behave.".
Digital Citizen
"The whole concept of not just outright conquering other nations whom you disagree with, and are more powerful than, is a relatively recent invention. Only since World War II has it really taken hold as a global opinion. Prior to that, it was just assumed that any great power had the right to colonize/dominate any minor country it could, and fight over territory from other great powers using whatever means it had."
I doubt it. I think that conquering weaker states as the natural order was a propagandic meme that the ruling elites developed to enrich themselves.
You see, there was a time when nobody really ruled anybody else -- not in the sense that we think of today. Sure, there were elders whose opinions were respected, relatives who had a say in your life, but there wasn't really 'the man' who could throw you in jail or have you killed if you broke some law. You had to worry about what your neighbor would do to you if you offended them, but there were no cops to call, no judge who had a final say, no king to plead to -- no third party who didn't have a direct interest in your conflict.
We have run into groups of people who live without authorities -- i.e. strangers who tell you what to do and can punish you for not listening to them. We ask them "take us to your leader" and their basic answer is "Hey, I'm a grown man, and I do whatever the hell I want to". They live deep in jungles, on islands, etc. They basically have the same 'material footprint', as far as housing patterns and distribution of wealth, as almost *everyone* did 6,000 years ago, so we don't really have any reason not to think that everybody was basically autonomous for most of human history.
The problem is that the people who believed in living with your neighbors and getting along with others tended to be conquered. The conquerers then wrote histories extolling their leaders for liberating the conquered people from their cruel masters and backwards ways, and generally carrying out the fate of the universe by conquering weaker people.
There are still people around who live in relative autonomy, but really aren't interested in conquering other people. Native Americans inside the United States, specifically the Hopi, practice a 'live and let live' philosophy in regards to themselves and their neighbors. It helps to live in a hard-scrabble desert instead of valuable, high-yield farmland. The autonomous Inuit in Canada, and the autonomous tribes in the Amazon are other good examples. I am not claiming they live in a Eden-like Utopia -- they do have murder, revenge killings, disease, infant mortality, etc. -- but they are very keen on defending their independence against Empires, and have basically done so for all of their existance.
The lesson here is that if you aren't living in valuable farmland, you can rule yourselves, and not really have to pay taxes.
Not, don't get me wrong. There were empires in the Americas before the Europeans arrived, and they were just as cruel, power-hungry, and blood-thirsty as the European conquerers. But that doesn't means that there weren't Native Americans, such as the Hopi, who weren't the non-conquering type, and didn't very much care to be ruled either, thank you very much.
It's good to have a sense of history. It's also good to have a sense of anthropology and archaeology. It isn't until you have a non-perishable staple crop ( basically, wheat in the Middle East, Rice in Asia, and Corn in the Americas ) that you can have societies that support people who do something other than hunting or farming, such as make crafts, or tell other people what to do, or fight. Some of those greedy people who think that they are above everyone else and deserve to be wealthy start whipping up a frenzy against *those* people living over *there*, how they are a threat, and need to be liberated by our kind leaders. Of course, they must also start paying their taxes.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
You know, I actually think that would have been more 'honest' FWIW. I mean, at least you are open about it. This 'Let's invade a sovereing nation, topple the government, and then engage in some good old nation building' leaves a bitter taste.
And, BTW, wasn't Bush the one that stated he didn't believe in foreign adventurism and nation building when he was governor?
The US government recently tried to throw its weight around in the Coke pesiticide controversy in India.
Well, a little genocide is understandable under the circumstances. My point was that armies are generally used to conquer, not just kill. But of course, they do kill.
Two of the themes in the original (1975) Rollerball are really relevant. One is the power of corporations over the individual. The other is more subtle and probably missed: freedom of information. The whole mystery could have been solved if Johnathon could have had access to the data, but through technological obsolescence (probably planned) not even the archivist could get at it. That's this whole WMV/WMA codec + DRM thing in a nutshell.
I expect that the 2002 version would be a complete waste of time, but am curious if that whole pursuit of information plot was cut out of the film. I bet it was sanitized by the big money and lacks any allusion to of loss of codecs or loss of data.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
newsflash for you. terrorists are *shock* people with their own thoughts and rationales. they're not like another race or something. the mulims i know do not want to see america destroyed. they are however understandably angered by america's foreign policy, just like every sane human being would be.
the word terrorist seems to mean a soldier in a war where he is technologically totally outclassed by the enemy.
Only merchants with a great deal of political pull.
Your run of the mill merchants are thrown to the wolves. If anything, their demise makes it better for the ones with powerful friends to intercede on their behalf.
living under the chaos that has been the dictatorial aftermath of communism in africa
While I take your point on the general case, I'd point to a counter-example (Ghana, where I grew up). A 'Communist Dictator' there (Jerry Rawlings) who a) fixed the economy, which is a damn good trick in Africa, particularly in the 80s and b) once he'd attained national stability threw open elections, served the two terms he was elected for and then retired. Compare and contrast with the Houphet-Boigny era in Cote D'Ivoire, next door.
~cHris
"Terrorists do not attack and kill 3000 people simply because they don't like the people's attitude... A group of people who have the resolve to carry out a terrorist attack would not be expending so much effort, energy, and money simply based on the attitude of their intended victims. The cause of hatred is far more deep-rooted than just an attitude."
Sigh.
Your attitude is made manifest in the people you elect, your foreign policy, your aggressive non-interest in the welfare of anyone outside your borders when that conflicts even minimally with your own level of comfort.
When people say "terrorists attack you because of your attitude" they don't mean that someone was once rude to a muslim in a Quick-E-Mart and that's why the WTC was destroyed.
"Attitude" in this case is a shorthand for "arrogance, lack of empathy, viewing other cultures/nations/people as expendable commodities, political interference, corruption and all the other actual actions that arise from holding said attitude".
The rest of the world is quite capable of making this distinction - why are so many US citizens apparently not?
Do you really think anyone would travel to the US, infiltrate the country, set up a terrorist cell, learn to fly passenger planes, try to hijack half a dozen planes then fly them into buildings, killing themselves as well as the passengers... merely because they disapproved of how you live your life?
Here is a Cluesflash: Muslims don't give a rat's ass about how Americans live their lives. You could eat babies while fornicating with your own sister (as I hear they do in Arkensas) and the world of Islam wouldn't care. However, where "your attitudes" start to affect "their lives", that's where people get mad enough to blow themselves up as a symbol of their anger.
Oh, and the world of Islam tends to get upset when images of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH and all of that) are taken in vain, but less the deliberate stirring up by middle-eastern governments (who saw a useful distraction from their own domestic problems) and bussed-in pre-arranged "riots", even that's not a big deal.
"Whoever modded the comment insightful needs a reality check (or a better understanding of terrorists)."
Terrorists are not maniacs, irrational or mad - they're just very, very firm in their beliefs.
They don't blow up buildings because the little yellow pixies told them to, because it's Wednesday or because somone from that country once flipped them off.
They do it because they're so angry that they feel the need to strike back in any way they can.
Sensible, insightful people would be wondering what got them so mad in the first place, and if it's really worth doing.
But I guess idiots just find it easier to demonise them (neatly absolving themselves of guilt) and assume that even if you changed your actions they'd just be doing it anyway, right?
"But what being ticked off at someone's attitude does is make you happy when the other party is attacked by terrorists. It doesn't make you actually commit a terrorist act."
So you're saying that people would blow themselves up because they (in a wonderfully nebulous way) "disapprove" of our "freedoms", and not because, for example, the botched invasion of Iraq directly lead to their kid brother being shot, and the ensuing collapse of the economy lead to their parents starving or dying of TB?
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
Sozialized?
hmmm?
Doesn't it surprise you how much EU lobbying from MS takes place at all, given that they are not Europeans.
It is strange to see the misconception that Antitrust policy had an anti-American agenda. In fact the current problem is that the EU has no anti-Microsoft position at all and Microsoft behaves like a wild animal in the antitrust proceedings, including unsound propaganda campaigns which burn their public affairs credibility.
Microsoft knew what they had to provide, they were ordered to do and did not comply. Then the Commission offered them anything they could get. They even chose an independend expert. The expert concluded that Micosofts documents were crap, then Microsoft attacked the Commission and the expert and delayed and delayed and delayed while it was ordered to comply years ago. They do not only fool the institution which plays nice. They also fool the European public which insiste on rule of law.
Of course the Commission meets all parties and talks with them. The attack is a foolish as it could be.
"Yeah, because governments never did that type of stuff until the inception of the US and no other governments have done that stuff or do that stuff now."
Oh well then, that's ok then. That completely absolves you of guilt for it.
While you're at it, why not start executing dissidents, throwing peaceful protesters in prison, holding prisoners without trial, executing children, rigging elections, torturing suspects, dismantling due process and eating babies? I mean, there have been societies at one point of another that have done all those things at one time or another, so surely it's alright to do all of them now, right?
(FWIW, I started writing that list as an example of some of the worst things any society has ever done... distressingly the modern USA is actually doing a number of them right now - I swear that was an accident, but it just goes to show...)
Or maybe the fact that you're the worlds only superpower means you should make an effort to be a good role-model - be the adult in the playground, instead of the kid with a pituitary disorder who's four times the size of the other kids but refuses to understand why he's not allowed to have "harmless" playground fights.
Or maybe you should carry on doing what you're doing, but should shut up about how you're the "light of the free world" and the "shining example of democracy" to everyone else. Be selfish, careless and violent. Just don't be a hypocrite with it.
Or maybe you should carry on doing and saying whatever you like, but should ensure that your behaviour at least doesn't adversely affect other nations, especially when it's merely for your convenience.
"If you're going to be anti-US, at least have the good sense to slam us for the things we do that every other government on earth doesn't do. Thank you."
Microsoft is getting investigated right now for doing what other companies already (and still) do. The thing is, Microsoft is a monopoly, so the rules are different.
Adults in playgrounds can't have a fight with the other kids.
Microsoft can't bundle software and lock out other vendors.
The USA can't act like a tooled-up banana republic, while simultaneously screaming what nice guys they are, and decide to squish anyone who looks at them funny.
Well, they all can, but that doesn't make them nice people, and it's perfectly understandable when people have a problem with it.
And finally, FWIW, most other countries did abuse their power, and that was wrong. I personally feel deeply ashamed of my country's actions (UK) from the end of the 18th century right up to the end of WWII.
However, holding up something from 50-100 years ago as proof that it's ok to do it now is pretty far down the list, as reasonable justifications go.
Hell, in the period above the USA was busy stealing ancestral homelands from the native Americans, you'd only just stopped viewing black people as possessions and women weren't allowed to vote. Does that mean that's all "ok" for the rest of us to do now, too?
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
There are some very great success stories in Africa. There are, unfortunately, even more tales of starvation and horror.
:( It is unfortunate that we place so much value on the forms of a government, when what really matters for the people is that there is some law and order so they can feel safe, and that the economy is good enough that they can feed themselves. I meaning to point an example, not bash all communist governments in africa :)
As far as I've studied, the general problem was that there was a great push for government and nation-building in africa, once the empires left, with little regard for actual practical economics and existing tribal structure. Some of these were democratic to begin with, but more and more they became dictatorial and communist/socialist, with influence from the Soviet Union especially (as the soviets were very keen on advancing their form of government across the world, just as the US was). The forced collectivization of farmland combined with the innefficient socialization of business, with the corruption so often present in dictatorial structures, completely wrecked many of the economies, leading to famine, unrest, and eventually warlordism.
I'm not an expert on african studies, but that seems to have been the case in far too many places
It was never conquered, but it was Russian and socialist ideas that shaped many of the new governments formed when the European empires in Africa collapsed (please remember that pretty much everyone who could had a stake in Africa - there is a reason that so many people along the coast have French as an official language). Most of the new governments that formed initially out of the chaos were socialistic dictatorships of a style very similar to the USSR's. As was seen earlier in southeast asia, the forced nationalism in many places of farming and industry destroyed their local economies :(
It never conquered, but it sent arms and supplies to quite a few socialist nations there.
And those elders were quite willing to go to war with the nearest neighbor over buffalo hunting rights.
While there were a few isolated peaceful American Indian tribes, the general history of the continent is one of war and slaughter as much as Europe of old. No place in the world has been immune from the basic realities of military power - that might does make right, when there is no higher authority's might saying otherwise.
I don't attempt to defend any of this morally - I think Iraq was a big mistake strategically, morally, and politically. But from the "realist" view of international relations, it is a natural consequence of our current imbalance of power. Without anyone to challenge the US, there is little disincentive to the leaders to avoid war in Iraq, for whatever reason (ideological, resources, political) they originally chose to do so.
Realism doesn't justify takeovers, it describes the existing data from human history as far back as the assyrian invasion of egypt, the rise and fall of the aztec empire, and the kingdom of mali. Mankind's history is a bloody one, and the few lucky societies to have escaped it for some time (due to a combination of isolation, lack of anything worth taking, traditions of non-violence, and good leadership) do not change the basic results of human existence.
The moment someone learns how to grow corn, someone else going to realize that it's a lot easier to pillage it than it is to grow it.
The face of imperialism has changed, but don't kid yourself. In place of 'for $deity and country', we have shareholders and market penetration.
Microsoft, ADM, Sony are every bit building empires as the British and Spanish of ye olde times.
Unlike most European countries, the USA has been reticent in separating their politicians' snouts from the corporate trough.
In Europe such behavior is frowned upon and often leads to the demise of political careers; in the USA it has been codified as acceptable and normal behavior.
During the nine years I lived in the USA I found democracy works admirably up to the state level; on the federal level I was appalled by tolerance of blatant corruption.
need a free COBOL editor for Windows?
Well...I was going to respond point by point, but I see another poster (abcd) already answered you very poignantly.
;-) that gather and exercise power, the manner in which they do so is completely different then in all the centuries before. Countries have to *want* to be in the EU, for starters.
The only thing I'm going to elaberate on, is the fact you seem to have a rather negative viewpoint of humanity, "bound" to its biology or genetics. While one could question this viewpoint on itself, even when one would accept it, it is oversimplified.
I could agree it is in the nature of humans to gather power, and exercise that power; but genetics/biology/evolution does not define HOW we're going about in gathering and exercising that power. Point in fact: europe is now, after of hundreds of years trying to force it in a unity manu military, truelly becomming a unity (of some sorts, at least). This time, it seems to be succeeding far better, yet: while there are still people (politicians included
Speaking purely from your biological viewpoint, it would be rather unlikely that our biology suddenly changed in Europe, so the change in mentality that happend is proof that things *can* be done differently, regardless of our biology. This is partly due to the oversimplification you make. While it is true that human nature has a side which wants to have power over others, it is equally true that this doesn't constitute the entirety of a human being, nor that it is the sole, or even the main drive of humans. For instance, aside from 'tribalism' that 'runs in our blood' (I'll take this concept as true, for arguments' sake), humans are also social animals, and will cooperate with eachother to achieve things. In fact, humans are damn complex beings, with different drives and urges from their genetic/biological nature (which can level eachother out), and, on top of that, a capability of reasoning unsurpassed in the rest of nature which, indeed, makes it possible to get above our 'animal instincts', at least to some degree.
Cooperation (say, on a world-scale) is made a lot more difficult, however, when another country still behaves as were building an empire still feasable today. While biology may not have changed, the mentality of people and the technology has: we now have weapons to annihilate eachother completely, we have the notion of basic human rights, we have the UN: all things that were unheard of in the time of the Romans. (Which, btw, wasn't romanticised: I said 'beside their destruction'. But we *do* realise they brought us many good things to, aside from the bad - which is why Caesar gets statues here, even when he actually murdered a quarter of our population. The point was not to excuse the emperialistic behaviour, it was to demonstrate that at least they DID bring culture and civilisation - something which can hardly be said of the USA.)
The whole question about "The US is the only country to support dictators?" is, as the other poster already mentionned, not something I claimed, nor would - because it's rethorical in nature. I already said 'also, like all empires'...and this obviously included european ones, like the Britisch Empire. The whole point, however, is that we know it was wrong: to my knowledge, every european country that had colonies, already apologised for its colonial past, and acknowledged its wrongdoings. And now, we're actively trying to solve problems the diplomatic way, wich, at least within the EU, has known great succes.
In contrast, the USA isn't apologising for anything, and they still *continue* the way the european empires acted 200 years ago. I'm still waiting for Dubja (or the USA as a whole, for that matter) to apologise for invading Iraq, for instance, or for acknowledging he was wrong in doing so.
Aside of that, even when my own government *would* behave like that of the USA today, I would be the first to condemn it, instead of claiming it's 'in our nature', or 'it comes with the territory'. It's exactly those kind of remarks that typifies the hypocritical and arrogant attitude of the USA, and only serves as apologetic excuses for emperialistic behaviour.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Well, yes, I disagree.
I counted the start from the Roman empire untill the end of it, including the eastern empire. We could both have good arguments for our positions, since 'they did well' is a rather subjective measurement. While the sphere of influence may have changed over time, it was still civilisation it brought with it, even when only the east-roman empire remained.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
"Christ now I'm rambling."
Well, not really. I thought this post to be the most clear in explaining your thoughts.
In a more abstract way, I can agree (at least partially) with many of your ideas and claims.
However, I do feel that a reaction was in order, whether it was 'helpful' or not. Because the 'helpful' depends on who was helped by it and why. I can understand what you say about getting defensive, but foreign comments should not make a difference if the american people itself think it's wrong. I *do* understand the reaction of getting defensive, however, since most people have the same reaction when they (or their country) is criticised. However, in all honesty: I don't think it would have mattered a iota regarding the attitude and actions of your government. They would just have gone the same way, whoever roasted them. And I mean, one can not expect europeans to agree with what the USA did, just because it theorethically might have boosted internal opposition (which seemed readily disgarded by the USA government anyway). If we agreed with the actions of the USA just for that reason, we would have lost all credibility in the world as well. In the end, one has to stand up for ones believes and the right course of action, regardless of hypothetical benefits that might, or might not, materialise, and which usefulness (the invasion would have happend anyway, and the middle east would have considered europeans as bad as the USA) is disputable.
Also, I find it hard to accept the notion that "it's not in the best interest to europe, so you'd better help". I can accept the statement on itself: a civil war is in no-ones interest - but it still reeks of emperialism. The most important question should be, not what is in our/your interest, but what is in the interest of the Iraqi people. Using logic, one can hardly claim a civil war is the best thing for them neither, but...it's a position YOU brought us in. It's just TOO easy to mess things up, and then say: "well, now that we messed things up, surely you agree that it's in everyones best interest if you help to clean the mess up". (if that was still possible, which I doubt).
This stinks of some hypocrite doubletalk; normally, when I teach kids how to take responsability for their own actions, I let them clean up the mess they make themselves (like, when they spoil coke on the table, or something). If a kid would tell me: "well, things would go faster if you helped me", I would agree with his statement (just as I do with yours) on itself, but that would be an utter hypocritical and unfair request, especially if he did it on purpose, and I warned him in front not to do it. In general, when people make a mess, it's good to let them clean it up themselves, because then, they learn some responsability for their own actions. If they can mess things up, and then ask others to help clean it up, one never learns anything, and can go on happily with screwing things up.
Frankly, I think it's more important that the USA gets burned, and burned badly. This may sound harsh, but maybe they will finally learn to stop meddling in such an imperialistic way, and on the whole the world will be better of THAT way. It's not that I'm gleefull about it, like some might do, but it's because I really think the USA could use some humility, and they will not learn that untill they get the door banged on their nose quite hard. I mean, be honest: if Iraq becomes a total disaster for the USA (and it looks like it will), it WILL make it more difficult for them to invade another country in the same manner, true? You can't keep your emperialistic expansion going when you get a bloody nose everytime, can you?
So, you see, in the grand scheme of things, it's not clear cut what is best, because best for who? For the USA? For Europe? For the world? For Iraq? For the future? Nobody really knows what is best. I mean, who can know if things wouldn't have improved safety far more, if the USA hadn't invaded Iraq, but instead spend the same amount of money on a dipl
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
How we keep our budgets down? We dont pay USD200 for screws... And were focused on defence.
Maybe I am optimistic about the future of mankind as a whole - but I only said peace would last in the EU. In other regions of the world I have no doubt there will be war. It just wont happen on European soil unless were invaded.
Europe was not occupied by the US for 50 years - the Soviets did have their troops there to force the Eastern bloc. Dominated perhaps is the more correct term for US influence - and boy has it taken a hit!
I actually agree in some ways when you call it the American occupation of Europe - and I hope that in the future Europe will distance itself from the US and NATO. Today I feel NATO is nothing but a tool for the US to wield European troops in foreign theatres where American loss of life would be to politically "expensive". But the real reason peace was permanent was because trade ties between Germany and France became so important that they now both stand to loose a lot from the others demise!
Makes me wonder when (not if) W will start saying "there are 57 Card-Carrying Terrorists in Congress!"
(No... I only wish I was joking.)
Wether you like it or not, the EU is convicting a monopolist. The US is free to convict a monopolist as well, from US or elsewhere, as long as they operate in the US and convicted the crimes on US soil. The US decided not to convict the monopolist in question which is their right no matter what the reason for that was.
Again, it does not matter from which country that monopolist was founded. The monopolist of subject probably wants to keep doing business in the EU so they have to comply to the laws and court orders in the EU (and other countries). It is as simple as that. Heck even if they don't want to do that they are still prosecuted for monopoly practives the subject has practiced in the past. You can put a lot of lawyers on it, you can ask your government to intervene, but it seems Mrs. Kroes is not affected. So, get over it.
The job arguments are hilarious and only count temporarily. If a _monopolist_ is abolished, that actually creates _more_ competition hence _more_ jobs. It just takes some time. Until the next monopolist. Repeat ad infinitum.
Now, I understand it when one would think that the EU prefers a EU corporation over a non-US corporation but thats mostly conspiracy theory; possible. Unproven though. Theory, nothing more or less. Like I said, the argument is the EC are convicting a monopolist. That is the argument. That is what triggered all this. Don't blur that part!
Its not surprising we dont share the same view on NATO, of course, living in totally different cultures will do that. I would like to point out that I am not a socialist nor do I have general anti-American views. However I do feel that NATO has outlived its usefulness and is now being misused for international missions outside its intended area of operations. If the US wants international backing from European friends and allies - we should consider founding a new alliance with a different set of goals. The UN is not living up to its lofty goals - and is ineffective at best where we need firm action (Darfur etc). I do see the need for military intervention, I just dont like being taken for granted and brought along for a ride..
My hope is that the European Union becomes a stronger federal government and is given power to become a stronger military power capable of defending Europe and intervening where neccessary when we say so. Of course today not many Europeans agree with me on the concept of a federal union.
You mention the Balkans as a potential troublesome area with history on your side - and its a good point - however as some of those miniature states are already fast becoming stable enough to be allowed to join the EU your point will soon be simply history. I believe in the concept of trade and cooperation within the capable and vigilant EU democratic structure. However Turkey is indeed a problem. Turkey is not a European nation in any sense neither people, culture nor religion. And it is most certainly not democratic with a military keeping the Islamists out of government. Not that the ruling J&D party isnt Islamist in the shadows. No, Turkey should never join the EU - and it annoys many Europeans that the US is pushing to have Europe include your "pet" in our family. Its like asking the US to make Mexico the 51st state!
So, yes, there might be a conflict between Greece and Turkey. But Greece, Crete and Cyprus are already members of the EU.. guess who well be siding with.
And, BTW, wasn't Bush the one that stated he didn't believe in foreign adventurism and nation building when he was governor?
That's exactly what one of Bush's campaign pledges was, none of these foreign adventures or nation building. Far from the only reason but it was one of the reason I voted against him. Now he's gone the opposite and has invaded two countries, but he does nothing about a third country where genocide is happening, Sudan. Shows just how much he cares about people.
FalconShould there be a Law?
most of Africa's problems have been the fall out of British colonialism.
Africa's problems weren't caused by the fall British colonialism, more like they were caused by European colonization. And not just British, the Dutch, France, Germany, and Italy all had colonized Africa. Once they did they created "nations" with a number of different ethnic groups living in them but afterwards most countries were left with just one ethnic group controlling the nation. Take Nigeria, there are something like a hundred different ethnic groups in Nigeria yet a small number of groups controls Nigeria and benefits from the oil. The same with Niger. A look through the Ethnologue country index Languages of Africa can give you an idea of how many different ethnic groups there are. And the way things are one ethnic group can have communities living in more than one country.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The British had to establish an empire to be able to actually trade with the countries they invaded. i.e. the British love their tea, so they took over India so people back in Britain could drink tea.
And because the Brits had such a bad trade imbalance, deficit, with India because of all the Indian tea being imported from India the Brits imported into China opium thus setting off the Opium Wars, one of which was known as the Boxer Rebellion. opium was illegal in China but the Brits wanted to sale it in China to balance trade so they attacked and captured the Empress forcing her the accept the opium trade.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The US has territories, like Puerto Rico and Guam, but not, say and enclave in China or an administered territory in Africa.
It doesn't take territory in Africa or China to be a colonial power. I bet a lot of people in American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and other dependencies and territories feel they've been colonized. And ask those from the Marshall Islands how they feel about the US using their islands to test nuclear weapons.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Where wars were fought over resources, now governments look out for the interests of business using alliances and instruments such things as treaties and the WTO.
Resource conflicts, wars, still happen. Look at the Congo, much of the fighting in the Congo is fueled by coltan which are used in electronic equipment. Your computer may have coltan from the Congo and your cellphone probably was made using it. In Angola the San or Bushmen are being forced out their ancesteral land so diamonds can be mined. The U'wa in Colombia were threatened when Oxy, Oxidental Petroleum, wanted to drill for oil on their land. Just because it's not in the news doesn't mean it's not happening.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Democracies rarely attack one another (I can't actually think of an example of that happening
Right off the top of my head I can think of one democracy that attacked other democracies, NAZI Germany. Germany was a democracy then, that's how the NAZIs came to power.
FalconShould there be a Law?
However I do feel that NATO has outlived its usefulness and is now being misused for international missions outside its intended area of operations.
NATO certainly has outlived it's purpose, the protection of the northern Atlantic and western European countries against the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries. However just as bureacracies throughout history have shown they don't want to die when their purpose is gone. Now there's talk about making NATO a worldwide organization.
No, Turkey should never join the EU
Ooh but Turkey should join the EU. By allowing Turkey to join Europe will be in a much better position of keeping Turkey from getting out of hand, and can moderate it's actions. Having said that, I don't agree with the way some are trying to steer Europe, for instance I applauded France's rejection of the EU Constitution. Several humdred pages? Give me a break. The constitution needs to be at most two pages, detailing how it is structured and saying exactly what it's powers are. Such as defend the citizenry from attacks, and punishing those who violate others rights. Then have a Bill of Rights.
FalconShould there be a Law?
How ironic that you would bring up France and the Netherlands rejecting the Constitution in the same paragraph dealing with Turkey. You do know that many have attributed the rejection of the constitution to resistance to Turkey joining?
But your point was that Europe could "control" or moderate Turkey if we let them join the EU. Why would we want to do that? The European Union was not created to control American interests - and thats what Turkey is. A geographic location for operations (Incirlik) close to Israel and Iraq. The EU is more than a trading bloc - it will become a federal state. Once youre in its permanent.
What advantages could there be? Turkey might have a great number of people - but they dont represent a market for European goods because most are too poor. Cheap labor for sure. But we already have millions of Eastern bloc laborers looking for opportunities. Not to mention millions of turks already in Europe. And next year the EU will have an additional twenty million citizens in Romania and Bulgaria. And when a country joins the union we invest billions of dollars in infrastructure and support to bring them up to a decent level. A hefty sum to be sure. Besides if Turkey joined the EU it would with projected growth rates be the largest nation and thus have a controling vote in EU institutions. Whos controling who then?
The Vatican and the Pope was turned down when he wanted to add a reference in the preamble to the Constitution to the Christian heritage of Europe - because it might upset the Muslim immigrants, secular socialists and Turkey. Wheres this leading? I dont know - but I dont want Europe to loose its identity and values. Turkey represents the Middle East and Islam - the strategic value of Turkeys geography does not equal what we would stand to lose. And America would lose too.
let the one chance at peace in Israel slip away.
Actually you have to hand to Bush the failure of the last and best chance of peace in Israel slip away. You may be thinking of Camp Davis, as most probably are, when the Palestinians wouldn't negotiate. However there almost was an agreement after that that most have not heard of. Negotiations took place where most of both Israel's and Palestinian positions were accounted for and an agreement almost was made in a little place in Egypt called Taba. These talks were in December and January 2001. Bush came into office before the talks ended. Of course as Bush campaigned with the position of isolationism and no foreign adventures or nation building he couldn't step forward and participate in the negotiations.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The European Union was not created to control American interests - and thats what Turkey is.
Turkey may be an interest of the US's but it should be Europe's interest as well. For one thing Europe, especially France, Germany, and the Scandinavian countries have sizable Muslim populations. And from what I understand many Turks live in Germany, you mention that many Turks live in Europe yourself. Also if conflict breaks out, say between Turkey and Greece over Crete Europe will be dragged into it anyway. With both Greece and Turkey as members of the EU the other countries can have a moderating influence on both. It already is working in a sense, because of Turkey's desire to join the EU Turkey has loosened up on the Kurds and is giving them more say in their own territory. Kurds are now allowed to teach their language in schools whereas they weren't allowed to before for instance.
The Vatican and the Pope was turned down
As the Vatican is the head of a religion it shouldn't be a member of the EU anyway.
I dont want Europe to loose its identity and values.
Are you talking about the identity of the Basque? Or of Andorra, Catalan, Celtics, Franks, and so on? As far as I'm concerned Europe has no identity that isn't new. The nations that comprises Europe are only what's left after a few tribes were able to invade and conquer the territory of other tribes. Much like the US or America there is no nation as they exist today that existed just a few centuries ago.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Turkey is of interest to Europe, of course, however theres a difference between trading, talking and cooperating and giving Turkey control over our continent. Turkey has tried to invade and take Europe by force several times, and only just been stopped outside the city gates of Vienna. Even today the Austrians remember this. Im not saying Turkey cant be a friend of Europe and the US. Theres always the possibility of a trade agreement - which they already have. The problems is that the arrogant Turkish government dictates that anything less than full membership is "not acceptable" to them! The nerve!
Where did you get your data on Muslims in Scandinavia anyway? I live here and the truth is less than 3% of the population are immigrants from Muslim countries. I dont consider that a considerable minority? Most of them are Turks by the way. France does not allow the census to include information on religion so nobody really knows. I believe about two million Turks live in Germany.
As I said in a previous post I am sure Turkey and Greece might at one point in the future again clash - and as I said Europe will side with the exisiting members Greece, Cyprus and Crete. The Cyprus and Northern Cyprus issue is really far more immediate. And Cyprus is the only internationally recognized nation on the island, the other part is occupied by Turkish forces. Just like all of the European territory Turkey has - it was taken by force. If only Greece remains a member Turkey would not dare attack the whole of Europe. So that argument works both ways.
A courtship is always pleasant - and as Turkey woos Europe they know exactly what to say. Except I dont believe the marriage will be a perfect match and would rather the bride stayed single. Turkey is a poor Muslim country looking for access to a wealthy Europe. Morroco also applied for membership at one point. So what if the Kurds now have a few rights they didnt before? They should have been there all along. The Kurds have been cheated by Turkey for a long time, Ataturk the Founder promised full independence. Why should this be an internal European Union concern? Its a human rights issue in Turkey.
You missed my point on the Vatican suggesting the inclusion of a Christian heritage message. The Vatican is not a member of the EU. They simply wanted European values to be included in the future Constitution. Its not much to ask. Except were already accommodating Turkey and everyone else.
Boy! You really have a strange view of Europe and its peoples. I sincerely suggest you read some more. My own nation has existed as a Kingdom since the Middle Ages and still is. New identity? Hardly. Your claim is too simplistic. Regardless of our changing borders and national structures Europe is a democratic and secular continent with a Christian heritage. Our human rights and democratic principles originated in Christian thought. We have a right to preserve and continue our way of life. We respect minorities, tolerate religious differences and alternative lifestyles. Like you said we have to force them on Turkey!
The identity of Europe has little to do with the national borders of its outlying nations as cultural allegiance. Turkey has sought to change its identity to a European nation since Ataturk - wishing it does not make it so. Within the EU there are greater possibilites for "nations" such as the Catalans to have self-governance. It simply does not matter as much since everyone enjoys the same freedoms. The identity I want preserved and unchallenged is our fundamental values and I dont see Turkey sharing them!
Europe does not need Proprietry MS software on its computers. The fact that they phone home often and exchange info is a serious worry too. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like but I would not put anything past MS and the US govnt.
And if this does fall back as coming from MS then thats another 18" nail in the coffin that the UE has erected around MS Europe already. Their days are numbered, lets hope its less than we think.
Linux user #349545 (GNU/Linux)iD8DBQBAzWjX+MZAIjBWXGURAmflAKCntuBbuK
Let me get this out of the way first, previously you had said Tureky wasn't in Europe, however using Onelook dictionary search for "Turkey" I checked the first three entries of it with a capital "T" and basically they all said Turkey was the Southeast of Europe and the Southwest of Asia.
Turkey is of interest to Europe, of course, however theres a difference between trading, talking and cooperating and giving Turkey control over our continent
Does admitting Turkey into the EU really give it control of Europe or just a say? I thought the EU was supposed to a union of equals.
Where did you get your data on Muslims in Scandinavia anyway? I live here and the truth is less than 3% of the population are immigrants from Muslim countries.
From Wiki:
Some 275,000 Swedes are today members of various free churches (where congregation attendance is much higher), and, in addition, immigration has meant that there are now some 92,000 Roman Catholics and 100,000 Eastern Orthodox Christians living in Sweden [14]. Also of significance are the 500,000 Muslims in Sweden.[15].
That page says the estimated population of Sweden in July 2006 was under 10,000,000. If it were 10M then muslims would be 5% of the population, and though nowhere near a majority I'd still say half a million is a sizable population. The Wiki page for Denmark says Muslims make up 4% of the population.
France does not allow the census to include information on religion so nobody really knows. I believe about two million Turks live in Germany.
Yea I know that about France but France has a number of North or Western Africans living there, from places like Algeria and Senegal. Actually the professor I had for French was Senegalese. And while I wouldn't say they all are I'd think many are Muslims. In Germany, Wiki says there's about 3 million Muslims, predominately from Turkey.
Just like all of the European territory Turkey has - it was taken by force.
I'm glad you brought up Turkey's militant pass again. Yes, Turkey has invaded and conquered other countries, especially under the Ottoman Empire, but the other European countries have done the same. In one sense after the Crusades Turkey was "justified", tit for tat. Actually it's only been recently, meaning the past few centuries, that the European nations have formed. Take Spain, Spain is the creation, unification, of many different tribes on the Iberian Penisula. For instance the Basque who are the oldest known ethnic group to live in Iberia, northern Spain and southern France are allowed thier own nation. Then there's the Catalan, inhabitants of Catalonia, and Andorra, Castile, Valencia, and so on. And like the Basque ETA some members of these other ethnic groups are also fighting for independence.
The Kurds have been cheated by Turkey for a long time, Ataturk the Founder promised full independence.
It's not just the Turks who've cheated the Kurds. Britian and the US both promised the Kurds their own homeland, Kurdistan, for their help in WWI, but when Ataturk signed a deal with Iran and Syria to fight against any Kurdistan they didn't do anything to hold up their promise or his.
The Vatican is not a member of the EU. They simply wanted European values to be included in the future Constitution. Its not much to ask.
I compleatly disagree with this, religious values shouldn't be envolved with politics! Since the Enlightenment started in Europe I'd think Europeans would understand this better than Americans, those in the US. As Thomas Jefferson said, religion is a private matter and that's exactly where it should stay, in private. Paraphrasing of course. I wonder how the Vatican would feel if the Celtic Druids were to demand their values be incl
Should there be a Law?
Sure, the dictionary might say that. And, yes, a small piece of Turkey lies on the continent of Europe. However does the Spanish enclave of Ceuta make Spain an African nation? It is a question of culture and history. Spanish citizens living in Ceuta are still Europeans, and the people of Istanbul act like Europeans - its just that the rest of the country is nothing close to European. I have been to Turkey and I know people from Turkey (living here in Europe). They really are not Europeans according to me for whatever it is worth.
Yes, it does give Turkey a very strong say in European Union matters because votes in the council are given in accordance with population size. Turkey will according to reasonable growth predictions soon have a larger population than Germany. Then theres always the question of Turks living in Europe acting as pressure groups.
No, it is not the manner in which they gained their minor claim to status as a European nation - its more the fact that they have no historical background to claim a share in our common heritage. Granted Asia Minor was once such a place. The recent history of the Turkish nation has never been such. Then again the religious and ethnic turmoil in that region has changed a lot over the centuries.
Sure, I know Spain very well having traveled extensively, lived and worked there. I have Basque friends as well. However their claim to nationhood and the diverse ethnics groups in Europe - does not change the fact that in one sense or another they have always been part of or under the control of a state that was intrinsically European. The fact that Europeans have changed does not mean we have to be flexible enough to include Asian countries. Georgia (Sakartvelo), is European culturally however stands no chance in getting accepted as a member either.
I wish the Kurds had been given their own nation - it would have served Turkey well. And I would not be so against their membership if their borders did not reach all the way to Iraq.
I do not quite agree with you. And that probably has to do with your American cultural background. For me it is perfectly normal to see a Christian political party with strong emphasis on Christian values. And living in a country with a State Church even more so. Perhaps you understand my background better then? Besides the point I was really making was:
No, absolutely not! I do not see why would think so. My point was that there is a link between the thoughts and values we have today that have a common history and heritage that is connected with Christianity. Many people fail to see that even though compassion and other noble values are shared with Humanity as a whole - they are often not expressed in the same way.
The Wiccans would not have a great claim to a mention in a European Constitution due to their lack of influence on recent history. I for one feel it is right to include a mention of our historical ties to Christianity that led to both good and bad developments. From the trade in slaves and colonialism to the modern, tolerant and democratic regimes we enjoy today. It is part of our identity more so for Europeans than for Americans - even for the atheists. We prayed every day in the public school I like everyone else attended, but today I chose not to worship at all.